MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4409867959 · doi:10.1093/rheumatology/keaf142.217

P180 Minimal spinal radiographic progression in patients with radiographic axial spondyloarthritis over 2 years of bimekizumab treatment: results from a phase 3 open-label extension study

2025· article· en· W4409867959 sur OpenAlexaff
Xenofon Baraliakos, Sofia Ramiro, Walter P. Maksymowych, Mikkel Østergaard, Ute Massow, T. Vaux, Alexander Marten, Natasha de Peyrecave, Denis Poddubnyy

Notice bibliographique

RevueLara D. Veeken · 2025
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueSpine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology
Établissements canadiensUniversity of Alberta
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésRadiographyMedicineAxial spondyloarthritisOpen labelSurgeryNuclear medicineRadiologyAnkylosing spondylitisRandomized controlled trial

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Background/Aims The effect of dual inhibition of interleukin (IL)17F in addition to IL-17A with bimekizumab (BKZ) on structural radiographic progression in the spine has not yet been reported in radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (r-axSpA) patients. Here, we report the impact of BKZ on 2-year spinal radiographic progression and new syndesmophyte formation in r-axSpA patients in the open-label extension (OLE) of the phase 3 BE MOBILE 2 study. Methods BE MOBILE 2 (NCT03928743) study design has been reported previously.1 At Week (Wk)52, eligible patients with r-axSpA could enroll in an ongoing OLE (NCT04436640). Baseline (BL) and Wk104 spinal radiographs were assessed using modified Stoke Ankylosing Spondylitis Spinal Score (mSASSS) by 2 central readers; change scores differing by ≥ 5 points were adjudicated. All readers were blinded to timepoint. The average score change across readers was determined for each radiograph; if 3 readers used, the average of the 2 closest change scores was calculated. Syndesmophytes were recorded if identified by 2 reviewers at a given anatomical site. New syndesmophytes were defined as syndesmophytes present at Wk104 but not at BL at the same site. For patients with mSASSS available at BL and Wk104, we report mean and cumulative probability of change from baseline (CfB) in mSASSS at Wk104, and the proportion of nonprogressors, using definitions mSASSS CfB ≤0.5 and mSASSS CfB <2. We also report patient proportions with new syndesmophytes at Wk104 in those with/without BL syndesmophytes. Potential predictive factors for spinal radiographic progression (mSASSS CfB ≥2) at Wk104 were assessed using logistic regression models. Results Of 332 randomised patients, 286 (86.1%) entered the OLE; 267 (80.4%) completed Wk104. Of Wk104 completers, 71.2% (190/267) had an mSASSS available at BL and Wk104. Mean (SD) BL mSASSS was 7.3 (13.8), with a CfB of 0.3 (1.9) at Wk104. Most patients (157/190; 82.6%) had no spinal radiographic progression at Wk104 (mSASSS CfB ≤0). The proportion of nonprogressors at Wk104 (mSASSS CfB ≤0.5) was 85.3% (162/190). When defined as mSASSS CfB <2, 92.1% (175/190) were non-progressors, including 83.1% (69/83) with existing BL structural damage (mSASSS ≥2). BL syndesmophytes were present in 57/190 patients (30.0%). At Wk104, only 12/57 patients (21.1%) with BL syndesmophytes and 2/133 patients (1.5%) without BL syndesmophytes had developed new syndesmophytes. Of the potential predictive factors assessed using the univariable models, presence of BL syndesmophytes, non-White ethnicity and positive HLA-B27 were found to significantly increase likelihood of spinal radiographic progression (mSASSS CfB ≥2) at Wk104. Conclusion Minimal spinal radiographic progression was demonstrated at 2 years of BKZ treatment in r-axSpA patients. A high proportion of patients were non-progressors, including in those with BL spinal damage. A minor fraction of patients developed new syndesmophytes at 2 years, including almost 1/5 with existing BL syndesmophytes. Disclosure X. Baraliakos: Consultancies; Consultant of AbbVie, BMS, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB. Member of speakers’ bureau; Speakers bureau from AbbVie, BMS, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB. Grants/research support; Grant/research support from: Novartis and UCB. Other; Paid instructor for AbbVie, BMS, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB. S. Ramiro: Consultancies; Consultancy fees from AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Johnson & Johnson Innovative Medicine, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi and UCB. Grants/research support; Grants from AbbVie, Galapagos, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB. W.P. Maksymowych: Honoraria; Honoraria/consulting fees from AbbVie, BMS, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Johnson & Johnson Innovative Medicine, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB. Grants/research support; Research grants from AbbVie, Galapagos, Pfizer and UCB; educational grants from AbbVie, Johnson & Johnson Innovative Medicine, Novartis and Pfizer. Other; Chief Medical Officer for CARE ARTHRITIS. M. Østergaard: Consultancies; Consulting fees from Abbott, Pfizer, Merck, Roche and UCB. Member of speakers’ bureau; Speakers’ bureaus for Abbott, BMS, Merck, Mundipharma, Pfizer and UCB. Grants/research support; Research grants from Abbott, Pfizer and Centocor. U. Massow: Corporate appointments; Employee of UCB. T. Vaux: Shareholder/stock ownership; Employee and shareholder of UCB. C. Prajapati: Corporate appointments; Contractor for UCB and employee of Veramed. A. Marten: Corporate appointments; Employee of UCB. N. de Peyrecave: Corporate appointments; Employee of UCB. D. Poddubnyy: Consultancies; Consultant for AbbVie, Biocad, Eli Lilly, Gilead, GSK, MSD, MoonLake Immunotherapeutics, Novartis, Pfizer, Samsung Bioepis and UCB. Member of speakers’ bureau; Speaker for AbbVie, BMS, Eli Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB. Grants/research support; Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Lilly, MSD, Novartis and Pfizer.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,003
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,003
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,018

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0030,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,002
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,001
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0020,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,024
Tête enseignante GPT0,338
Écart entre enseignants0,314 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2025
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueLara D. VeekenMême sujetSpine and Intervertebral Disc PathologyTravaux en français237 207